List automations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that each automation includes contact-journey counts (entered, moving through, finished, failed) and explicitly states these are not email engagement metrics. This prevents misuse and sets expectations for the returned data, which is more than the annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. The second paragraph adds a crucial clarification about the counts and directs users to the correct endpoint for engagement metrics. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list endpoint with well-described parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (counts vs. engagement metrics) and the scope (per profile). It doesn't explicitly explain pagination defaults or response structure, but since there is no output schema and the description already clarifies the data content, only a minor gap remains. A bit more detail on page/per_page defaults could push it to 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (profileUuid, page, status, per_page, sort_direction) is already well documented with descriptions and enums. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the return data instead. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Get a paginated list'), a specific resource ('automations in a profile'), and immediately distinguishes it from related siblings like listAutomationSteps and getAutomationDetails by focusing on list semantics and profile scope. It also clarifies that the counts included are contact-journey metrics, not engagement metrics, which further differentiates it from campaign-statistics tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit exclusion: for opens, clicks, and unsubscribes, use the campaign statistics endpoint instead. While it doesn't name the exact sibling tool (e.g., reach_getCampaignPerformanceV1), it provides clear guidance on when not to use this tool and frames the primary use case (listing automations and their journey counts). Slightly more explicit alternative naming would improve it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.